xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

ADD 801063 - mkfs.xfs after having ext2 mounted on a device can fail

To: nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: ADD 801063 - mkfs.xfs after having ext2 mounted on a device can fail
From: pv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-to: sgi.bugs.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Webexec: webpvupdate,pvincident
Webpv: sgigate.sgi.com
View Incident: 
http://co-op.engr.sgi.com/BugWorks/code/bwxquery.cgi?search=Search&wlong=1&view_type=Bug&wi=801063

 Status : open                         Priority : 3                         
 Assigned Engineer : nathans           Submitter : lord                     
*Modified User : nathans              *Modified User Domain : engr          
*Description :
Running mkfs to build an xfs filesystem after a partition has
been mounted as ext2 has periodically failed for me. The failure
is usually this:

[root@lord /]# mkfs -t xfs -f -l size=16000b /dev/sda4
meta-data=/dev/sda4              isize=256    agcount=8, agsize=149104 blks
data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=1192826, imaxpct=25
         =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks, unwritten=0
naming   =version 2              bsize=4096  
log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=16000

.....


==========================
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (ADD)
From: nathans@engr (BugWorks)
Date: Sep 07 2000 12:15:06PM
==========================

double DOH!

- ioctl takes a pointer & returns errno - no strace-visible size, of course;
- the libxfs Makefile forces -DNDEBUG cos of repair (in the noble tradition
of libsim ;), so we don't trip the assert; but anyway...

>From the strace output it does look alot like we're writing "too far"
in the splat-zeroes-over-last-EFS-SB case - its very tempting to remove
this write since we shouldn't expect too many EFS superblocks on all the
existing Linux boxen & we don't take such measures for any of the other
filesystem types... so, think I'll nuke this.

I still suspect the driver ... do you know whether this is going
through the generic scsi driver, or something else like md/lvm?
I tried reproducing this on two local machines with vanilla scsi
devices yesterday with no luck.  Guess it could even be specific
to a particular type of scsi drive.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>